In Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v. Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 433, 824 N.Y.S.2d 353 (2d Dept. 2006), app. den., 9 N.Y.3d 803, 872 N.E.2d 875, 840 N.Y.S.2d 762 (2007), the parties exchanged two executed exclusive marketing agreements by fax, pursuant to which the plaintiff was to market nationally several of the defendant's properties which were not in New York. Grimaldi v. Guinn at pp. 14-15, citing Kimco. While the plaintiff was conducting its marketing campaign, the defendants made a few follow-up telephone calls. Id. at p. 15, citing Kimco. The Second Department determined in Kimco that the defendants' acts of faxing the executed contracts to New York and making a few telephone calls did not qualify as purposeful acts constituting the transacting of business, or purposeful availment of the New York forum, bur rather were merely attempts to contact the plaintiff. Id.